Sreedhar Gaddam v. Discover Bank ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • DISMISS; and Opinion Filed January 23, 2019.
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-17-01442-CV
    SREEDHAR GADDAM, Appellant
    V.
    DISCOVER BANK, Appellee
    On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00971-B
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Whitehill
    Opinion by Justice Brown
    Appellant Sreedhar Gaddam, pro se, appeals the trial court’s order granting summary
    judgment for appellee Discover Bank in the bank’s debt collection suit. Appellee has moved to
    dismiss this appeal because appellant has failed to file a brief that complies with the rules of
    appellate procedure. We agree and dismiss the appeal.
    On June 27, 2018, appellant filed a brief. In a letter dated July 12, 2018, we informed
    appellant the brief he filed failed to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief is deficient in that, among other
    things, (1) it does not contain a concise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, or the
    trial court’s disposition of the case; (2) it does not concisely state all issues presented for review;
    (3) it does not contain a statement of facts with references to the record; (4) it does not contain a
    succinct, clear, and accurate summary of the arguments made in the body of the brief; and (5) the
    argument does not contain appropriate citations to the record or to authorities. See 
    id. 38.1(d), (f),
    (g), (h), & (i). We provided appellant an opportunity to file an amended brief that complied with
    the requirements of rule 38.1 within ten days and cautioned him that failure to comply may result
    in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See 
    id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3
    (b), (c). By order dated
    July 26, 2018, we granted appellant an extension to August 28, 2018. As of today’s date, appellant
    has not filed an amended brief.
    Although individuals have the right to represent themselves pro se in civil litigation, they
    are held to the same rules of appellate procedure that licensed attorneys are required to follow. See
    Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 
    315 S.W.3d 893
    , 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no
    pet.). Appellate court judges are not responsible for “identifying possible trial court error” or for
    reviewing the record to find favorable facts that may support a party’s position. 
    Id. Importantly, under
    rule 38.1(f), the court “must be able to discern what question[s] of law [it] will be
    answering.” 
    Id. at 896.
    A brief fails if it does not articulate the issues to be answered by the court.
    
    Id. In addition
    to requiring articulation of the issues, the rules call “for the brief to guide [the court]
    through the appellant’s argument with clear and understandable statements of the contentions
    being made.” 
    Id. Under rule
    38.1(i), appellant’s argument must make direct references to facts in
    the record and applicable legal authority. 
    Id. A brief
    fails under rule 38.1(i) if the court must
    speculate or guess if references to facts or legal authority “are not made or are inaccurate,
    misstated, or misleading.” 
    Id. In his
    brief, appellant complains he was not aware of appellee’s motion for summary
    judgment until after the trial court ruled on it. Appellant does not include any citations to the
    record to support his allegations, nor does he include citations to any legal authority. Consisting
    of only four pages, the brief is incomplete, leaving us to speculate or guess as to the contentions
    –2–
    being made and whether they are meritorious. Because appellant has not provided the Court with
    existing legal authority that can be applied to the facts of the case, his brief fails. See 
    id. at 896.
    Appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after
    being given an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and
    dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).
    /Ada Brown/
    ADA BROWN
    JUSTICE
    171442F.P05
    –3–
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    SREEDHAR GADDAM, Appellant                        On Appeal from the County Court at Law
    No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-17-01442-CV        V.                      Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00971-B.
    Opinion delivered by Justice Brown,
    DISCOVER BANK, Appellee                           Justices Bridges and Whitehill
    participating.
    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
    Judgment entered this 23rd day of January 2019.
    –4–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-17-01442-CV

Filed Date: 1/23/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/24/2019